The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hyland List[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I looked at google, and only found about 30 results, none of which are independent reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Seems to be WP:SPAM, never asserts notability. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 14:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. • Anakin ^(talk) 15:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 01:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I was going to suggest a merge into a history section at Barrister's clerk but on reading that article, it has its own issues. •Florrie•leave a note• 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google doesnt hold all the answers in regard to notability. WP:NOT#WEBSPACE seems to handle it for me. Twenty Years 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be no real reliable sources that assert that this is a notable organisation. Would be willing to change my vote if it turns out they're notable under another name though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.